In a recent post, Thom Rainer hits on a pertinent topic that needs more attention. He calls them Church Cartels. Dr. Rainer has previously written on Church Bullies and he now expands the idea of a “bully” to a cartel, or group of people who are seeking to control the church. I highly recommend that you read both pieces, but especially the one on Church Cartels posted today.
As a pastor for many years, I read and heard so much about the role and responsibility of a pastor. Eventually, however, I came to dread going to evangelism conferences because I could no longer take seeing the megachurch pastor berate the room full of mostly older, white haired, tired pastors who came to the meeting for encouragement by telling them that they needed to be more fired up and do more because souls were at stake. My church was young and growing and reaching people of all kinds and I had a lot of energy. I would agree with the conference speaker about all that we should be doing. But, I began to suspect that something more was at work than a lack of motivation.
At one particular conference, while the mega-pastor was talking about how he shared his faith on the airplane to a stranger, I looked around and became so grieved. The room was full of men who had served for so long. They were getting older. Their whole lives had been given to the service of the church, many of which were struggling and in decline. They agreed with all that was being said and nodded their heads and said “Amen,” but they could not carry it out on their own. They had tried. They were tired. They needed people to come around them and work with them and cooperate. They needed people to repent for opposing what Scripture clearly called for and continuously disagreeing or slow playing or running their own agendas and building their own kingdoms. What was being said from the platform was fine, but few of these men had any ability to carry it out. They needed a church who would hold up their arms and actually work with them instead of expecting the pastor to be their servant and caretaker and fall-guy for every problem that popped up. I looked over the crowd, saw the weary faces, and realized that we weren’t helping them. We were just adding another load onto their already wearing but willing backs.
Dr. Rainer is right about the Church Cartels. Here are his main points:
A church cartel is an alliance of bullies, bully-followers, carnal Christians, and even non-Christians in the church. Its ultimate goal is to get its way. It feeds off of selfish power.
We don’t like to talk about church cartels. After all, it’s not the Christian thing to do. But they exist in too many churches. And if they are not exposed, they will continue to wreak havoc.
Here are five of the very dangerous realities of the church cartel:
-
When a cartel is allowed power, the church is already unhealthy. The cartel is, by its definition, self-centered and power-driven. A church is already very sick if members remain silent and do not confront this evil directly.
-
A church cartel leaves carnages of wounded and dying people. If you have any doubts about this danger, please see my post on “Autopsy of a Deceased Pastor.” See the comments. See the pain and questions and defeat the cartel leaves behind.
-
Church cartels drive away healthy leaders. Some of these leaders are driven away by the cartel. Others leave on their own accord because they want to be in a joyous and healthy church. Their departure exacerbates the problems in these churches.
-
Church cartels cause church leaders to work from a posture of fear. Instead of moving forward in faith, church leaders often spend more time worrying about how their decisions will impact the cartel. These leaders know the cartel will come after them if they go contrary to the carnal group’s wishes.
-
We are told in Scripture to manifest the fruit of the Spirit; the church cartel causes the church to do just the opposite. Galatians 5:22-23 is clear about the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Church cartels bring hate, discord, anxiety, impatience, evil, fear, brutality, and chaos.
These traits do not describe every iteration of the “Church Cartel.” There are variations and the cartel might encompass some or a few of these traits – and maybe a few more. But, they exist and they are damaging.
Bad advice is often given to pastors such as, “Just be silent and suffer the way Jesus suffered. God will exalt you in the end.” There is a time for that, but there is also a time to stand and fight and not give in to groups of people trying to control you – especially when God has called you to a place, a people, and a purpose. Think of Nehemiah seeking to rebuild the wall in Jerusalem. Sanballat and Tobiah were trying to thwart him at every step. Nehemiah stood his ground because he was not trying to serve himself but he was fighting for the protection and flourishing of the people. Consensus is not always the best approach – and can even become an idol that replaces God’s work in calling His church to repentance and dedication to the work that He has put in front of them to do. I am not calling for pastors to be prideful and to ignore their critics or run over people in the church. By no means! That would be to err in the other direction. But, there has been SO MUCH written and said against pastors and pastoral authority, that we are nearing the point where basic pastoral leadership and functioning is in jeopardy on a widespread scale – even when the pastor has a good heart. Perhaps especially then.
Now that I travel throughout the Southeast and work with pastors of many denominations and in many regions, I see how widespread some of these things are. So many pastors want to lead and want their churches to reach people and be effective. But, they are afraid of offending people in their church, of bringing up uncomfortable things, and of leading their church to try and reach people who might not be accepted in their churches. Many pastors already anticipate who will oppose them and what cost they will pay for running afoul of the Cartel. Part of knowing your congregation well is that you know where the opposition will arise from before you even bring something up. A problem with that is that you might avoid conflict and just try to survive. That is wrong for the pastor to do, of course, and it is a forsaking of God’s call. It also shows a weakness of character, faith, and resolve. I get that. But, you know what? Pastors are human too. Rejection takes it toll. Worrying about what will happen to your children if you run afoul of the church bully because you have no other means of caring for them other than your church salary and you know that every established church opening has hundreds of applicants – that can take its toll. How many pastors get blasted in Deacon’s meetings where they are emasculated and then come home at night to stand at the door and look at their sleeping children with tears in their eyes and cry out to God and beg for a way out of the situation? Or, they want to stay in the situation and keep serving, but they don’t know how to handle or navigate the Church Cartel? It happens. The pastor is accountable for this and how he responds, but this type of thing does not happen in a vacuum. An environment is often created that nurtures pastoral cowardice and we all need grace and someone to come alongside us and help us work through these things.
So, what to do if you are dealing with a Church Cartel?
First of all – and before anything else is said – both Church Bullies and Church Cartels should be loved, prayed for, and served. Forgiveness should be offered and the pastor should be patient and long-suffering. Reconciliation and cooperation should always be the goal – not retribution or getting one’s way. That is what Jesus calls us to and is who He is. These folks are not the enemy – we battle not against flesh and blood. They too are objects of God’s mercy. But, how do pastors navigate this? That is the larger question.
As I study this topic, I know that there are ways forward here and ways of confrontation, reconciliation, healing, and future growth and health. Pastors need help and counsel from others to give much needed perspective. So, I’ll throw the comments open and ask if other pastors have experienced this type of thing and ask for some ideas.
Dr. Rainer needs to write a book on this.
This is a heartbreaking post to read. The thought of so much discord and hate, in a church, is hard to comprehend, but it does occur.
The bottom line is that for any organization to be healthy there has to be an agreed upon direction and vision. Sometimes that doesn’t exist, and the challenge is to build or create that. That takes time, Often years.
The other thing that I have noticed is that churches are often organized in such a way as to enhance or reward political machinations. You can poke a hole in just about any organizational model. They all have strong and weak points.
Over the last 24 years, I have seen the benefit of having an organizational structure that de-politicizes the church. I personally believe in a strong group of elders that serve as the Board of Directors, with the pastor (but no other staff member) being one of the elder/directors. Nothing is brought to the congregation for a vote unless it is unanimously recommended by the elders (by secret ballot, no less).
This means that what gets done, gets done because everyone is pulling in the same direction and is on the same page.
The downside is that if you have recalcitrant and difficult people on the elder board, they can block everything. But that’s ok. That responsibility lies with them. The pastor has to work with them and bring about consensus. If he cannot do that, it may be that what the pastor wants is not God’s will for that church. Or, it may be that the recalcitrants just have to take the blame for what they do. But the point is, there is no method or ability for the pastor to go around the Board to the congregation to foment discord so as to overcome the Board with political power.
Another thing is that this method keeps the church from having any non-productive meetings that encourage people to grab the mic and hold the room. The only time to have a meeting is to inform people what is going on or to make a unanimous recommendation. In either of those cases, questions should be welcomed and encouraged, but they occur in context.
But again, that’s just one model that I have seen work well.
The other thing that these pastors need to know, in my opinion, is that if they are faithful, they are already successful. Their success is not measured by their church’s success in terms of buildings and numbers. Their success is measured by their faithfulness, not the perceived financial and organizational success of their church.
Not sure that “hate” is at work. Just power struggles and competing agendas.
Yes, being “faithful” is important. But, I’m not talking about success, necessarily. I’ve also seen pastors told to “just be faithful” while things spin out all around them. There is also a need to be able to navigate such situations and to know what to do. Like you said, models do not help. We are talking about what happens when people use whatever model exists for their own benefit. Pastors do that as well and it is often addressed. But, it can happen in the church too. Sometimes, a pastor just needs to know that it is okay to stand and not just roll over, as is often expected.
” I personally believe in a strong group of elders that serve as the Board of Directors, with the pastor (but no other staff member) being one of the elder/directors.”
Question. In this scenario are any of the “other staff” identified and functioning as pastor/elders? If they are – then why not include them in the plurality of elders and if they are not – then why identify them as pastors at all?
I have a couple of thoughts here.
First, I think it is a mistake to believe that the scriptures give us a road map. We should use principles of wisdom.
Second, there are 2 principles that influence my thinking.
I believe the church should be governed primarily by the people who pay the bills, live there, and do not draw a salary from the church. To them, there is no or little financial incentive or career incentive connected to their church attendance.
More importantly, there is no good reason that a church should not separate employment and governance functions.
An employee cannot oversee himself. There is an inherent conflict between being an employee, and then being on the governing board that oversees and manages you.
Also, if the pastor oversees the staff, but the staff serves on the governing board, then the pastor and the staff member are not in a manager/employee relationship. They are both on the board, and equal.
I was once in a church that had this arrangement.
Having the associate pastor on the board and at all meetings and with the same title made it very hard for the pastor to truly oversee the associate pastor.
I think that many traditional Baptist churches handle this by treating the deacon body as the board, and the pastor nor other staff have a vote.
if that’s your approach then don’t you simply have one elder/pastor and all staff are employees – which brings me back to my question why I called associates pastors at all if that is the case?
Also I would ask you where in scripture our deacons give an oversight responsibility with regard to the church like elders are?
Under the structure you propose isn’t disingenuous to call any of them a pastor except the one who actually serves as a pastor/elder?
Sorry – I’m trying that again:
If that’s your approach then don’t you simply have just one elder/pastor with staff as employees – which brings me back to my question – why call associates pastors at all if that is the case?
Also I would ask you where in scripture are deacons given an oversight responsibility with regard to the church like elders are?
Under the structure you propose isn’t it disingenuous to call any of the staff a pastor except the one who actually serves as a pastor/elder?
There is more than one elder. The rest are lay elders. The pastor being an elder is a conflict, but there is only one. It is manageable, and since there are no other staff on the board, the problem with managerial oversight is eliminated.
I agree with you about the deacon issue. I believe that deacons in the NT were there to serve and meet practical needs. I was simply referencing what I have observed in many Baptist churches. The deacons also play a governing role.
It is not disingenuous to separate pastoral care and biblical teaching from governance so long as you make that clear.
I cannot think of any significant non-profits that do not operate this way.
The board of most non-profits are made up of people who do not work at the non-profit or draw a salary from it. The CEO may be on the governing board, but no other staff serve on the board.
This seems to me to be an elementary principle.
I will confess that many people who interview with us for jobs are surprised when they learn they won’t be elders. But when they come on board after a year or two they always end up appreciating the arrangement because it allows them to focus on their pastoral duties, and they appreciate the actual oversight.
It is never healthy for an organization to have a bunch of employees who are legally their own bosses.
Are you unaware of this principle? Is it new to you?
How many elders do you have? How many are employed staff?
Lots of “elementary secular” elements in your model. Not being a jerk – but that is what I am seeing i your comments.
Viewing a pastor as a hireling or an employee is unbiblical and problematic itself.
If you are not going to let them function as as pastor/elder (those words are synonymous in scripture) then do not call them pastor. It is confusing.
I agree with you about lay and “paid” elders serving together – I would even suggest that there be more lay than paid….but to create a secular model with elders in name but not in reality is, as I said disingenuous.
The whole idea of plurality of elders is to create mutual oversight and accountability – with of course all of them being accountable to the church acting as one body.
I feel the same about calling people deacons and then having them function as elders.
i also feel it is disingenuous and confusing to identify people minister or director when in actuality they are functioning in elder capacity (preaching, teaching, oversight, shepherding, ect…)
*Viewing a pastor as a hireling or simply an employee is unbiblical and problematic itself. Viewing the senior/lead pastor (whatever he is called) as a CEO, as you inferred above is secular not biblical. (although I admit many people hold to that idea or a variation of it)
“pastor/elder (those words are synonymous in scripture) then do not call them pastor. It is confusing.”
Hi Tarheel. Actually, the noun “pastor(Shepherd)” is only found ONCE in the NT when not refering to Jesus…in Eph. 4:11, in a list: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,”
Elsewhere, Shepherd as a verb is used as ONE OF the things an elder does. Elder is by far the more common term, along with “overseer”.
So it might make sense to have a group of people who “oversee” the church, and then also have pastors, evangelists, teachers, prophets…who are NOT overseers.
I actually know of a large church that has separate Elders and pastors, and only lets Men be Elders, but will allow both men and women to be pastors/shepherd (since they are not exercising authority).
(Granted, the way most people use pastor today equates it with authority….but it’s not a necessity.)
While I get the point, and believe that women have pastoral gifts and ministries that are either directed toward other women or children, or are exercised on a more informal, less official, manner, 1 Peter 5:1–2 also uses the terms elder and bishop, along with the verbal form of pastor, all in the same context, referring to the same group of people.
Andrew,
As David Rogers said – – – 1 Peter 5:1,2. All the passages that deal the pastor/elder/bishop are referring to same group of people. Those who teach/preach, oversee and shepherd the flock of God.
Exercising oversight is a duty biblically granted elder/bishop/pastor(s) – my main point is that calling someone a pastor but forbidding them to act as scripture outlines for that office is confusing at best and disingenuous at worst.
I think our whole modern-day Evangelical system of calling spiritual stepfathers from outside the congregation rather than godly older brothers from within the congregation to be pastor/elder/bishops, along with the corollary structures of pastor-search committees and seminary placement offices, is dysfunctional, not fully biblical, and largely to blame here. How do we change that, though? Beats me.
LOL, David. I think you are on to something – and it beats me to. Heck, if you can’t figure it out – I have absolutely no chance of doing so.
Thanks for sharing Alan. Rainer again hits the nail on the head.
Bivocational ministers are not financial ly dependent on their churches. So much of the fear written of in the article was from anticipating the sudden loss of income to support their families. Just another benefit of Bivocational ministry, in my opinion.
Bethany,
Strange.
It seemed to me to be about bad and sinful behavior from “cartels”/”power groups” within churches and how they impede spiritual growth and can tend “wear down” any pastor and his family.
These issues create problems and break the heart of faithful pastors whether they be “vocational” or “bivovational”.
There’s really no such thing as a “part time” pastor anyway – only ones were paid that way… The heart, desire to shepherd and lead, passion, pain, concern, sleepless nights, etc.. are the same.
Respectfully, What you incorrectly described as “fear” – Is, in my estimation, equally expressed in vocational and bivocational pastors…
When I was bi-vo, I was dependent on the church income as well as the “non-church” income. The only way I could have the time free from the “non-church” job to do church work was to work part-time.
Bi-vocational is a separate set of needs and benefits, but complete independence isn’t always one of them. Many bi-vo folks pass up better income and advancement in their non-church field to have the ability to do their church ministry.